If one proposes accurate teaching of evolution why the deal about Pandas
which is all but a reliable source on these issues?
What about the complaints by Dover school board representatives about
the books being 'too Darwinian"?
I understand that 'teach the controversy' sounds far less anti-science
than teach intelligent design but both approaches seem quite flawed.
The latter for being scientifically vacuous, the former for often being
scientifically incorrect.

<quote>And yet, setting intellectual property questions aside, the more
I ponder the matter and read the commentators on both sides, the more I
tend to think that a case can be made for teaching the controversy
between ID and Darwin.</quote>

Graff continues to observe however that

<quote>

Not that the sides in this debate are equal, as Bushâ€™s comment suggests.
If we judge the issues strictly on their scientific merits, the
Intelligent Designers donâ€™t seem to have much of a case. In a lengthy
and detailed article in /The New Republic/ (August 22 & 29), the
evolutionary scientist Jerry Coyne persuasively shows that the supposed
â€œflawsâ€